by Travis Mateer
If you perhaps forgot how worthless legacy media has become, the New York Times is here to remind you with its choice of who to platform, and who to ridicule.
Did you happen to lose a few billion dollars of investor money while casually putting an entire industry of emerging financial technology in jeopardy? Definitely platform that curly haired MFer!
Bankman-Fried will speak at the New York Times DealBook Summit on November 30. Single ticket charges to the conference are $2,500. Bankman-Fried has confirmed his in-person attendance at the conference.
The announcement has attracted backlash from the crypto community that has been left counting losses after the collapse of FTX. Bankman-Fried is also being criticized for his role in the matter. The administrators have said that the financial records of the exchange were worse than what was seen with Enron.
Twitter users attacked the New York Times for pushing ahead with Bankman-Fried’s appearance at the conference, with Twitter owner Elon Musk also questioning whether Bankman-Fried was attending.
What did this t-shirt wearing crypto-con-artist have to say? I don’t know, and I don’t care. I was too busy scrolling through a Twitter thread of images that this same paper of record is dismissing as some kind of Qanon manifestation. From the link:
Yes, those pesky trolls unfortunately looked too closely at the ad featuring a child holding a bondage teddy bear and noticed some curious court documents relating to the Supreme Court and child porn. Here is how the visible inclusion of those documents is being explained:
The documents came from “numerous boxes” rented from a prop house, a lawyer for Mr. Des Jardins, the set designer, wrote in an email statement.
But all were supposed to be “fake office documents,” Balenciaga said in its Nov. 28 statement: “They turned out to be real legal papers most likely coming from the filming of a television drama.” Balenciaga, which had the images in hand for months before their release, called the inclusion of the Supreme Court page “unapproved” and “the result of reckless negligence.”
Mr. Des Jardins’s lawyer, in her statement, said that “there certainly was no malevolent scheme going on.” Balenciaga representatives were on set during the shoot, “overseeing it and handling papers and other props, and Des Jardins as a set designer was not responsible for image selection from the shoot,” she wrote. (Her client, she also reiterated, had no involvement in the other Gift Shop campaign.)
Ultimately, image selection would have fallen to the brand, which in its Nov. 28 statement said that it took “full accountability for our lack of oversight and control” and “could have done things differently.”
If you believe this explanation, more power to you, but I seriously doubt anyone who has waded into this cesspool will buy this explanation. The ad is just the tip of a very depraved iceberg.
The reason Q is being invoked is because that particular psychological operation (psyop) was designed to compromise the entire topic of sexual depravity among the elite, especially the sexual exploitation of minors. Just like the term “conspiracy theorist”, the chance of being labeled a Qanon nutter is like a cognitive fence that keeps people from approaching this topic or even seeing any validity in the claims.
If you appreciate this content, please consider making a donation at my about page. Thanks for reading!
